Obama prepares for peace, Romney prepares for war

Senator Barack Obama mentions Israel six times in his recently published Foreign Affairs article. "Changing the dynamic in Iraq will allow us to focus our attention and influence on resolving the festering conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians -- a task that the Bush administration neglected for years", he writes.

In Governor Mitt Romney's Foreign Affairs article the word Israel appears eight times. "I recently had the privilege of spending some time with Shimon Peres, the former prime minister of Israel", Romney writes, and "someone asked him about the conflict in Iraq, and he said, 'you need to put this in context. America is unique in the history of the world. During this last century, there was only one nation that laid down hundreds of thousands of lives of its own sons and daughters and asked for nothing for itself.'"

Comparing the visions these two Presidential hopefuls described in the recent edition of the prestigious magazine is an interesting drill. Both offer every reason to believe that Israel's security and best interest is dear to their hearts ("our starting point must always be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel", writes Obama). But what a difference their interpretations of those interests make! What a difference can be detected in their outlooks! One is about peace, the other about war. One is optimistic, almost upbeat (one can also call it naive and delusional), the other much more pessimistic and grim (one can also call it realistic and down to earth).

Obama starts with the much needed (in his view) American commitment to solve the Israeli-Arab conflict. He actually seems to think it is possible: "Now more than ever, we must strive to secure a lasting settlement of the conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security", he writes. Romney, for his part, doesn't put any special emphasis on the peace process. His main focus is the "genocidal threats against Israel" - made by Iran and other militant groups. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as he describes it, is part of "the jihad" aiming to "replace all modern Islamic states with a worldwide caliphate while destroying the United States and converting all nonbelievers, forcibly if necessary, to Islam".

So while Obama is determined to "help the Israelis identify and strengthen those partners who are truly committed to peace", Romney sees a much longer road ahead. Obama in his article uses the word "peace" almost twice as much as Romney (13 to 7). The Republican talks more about "struggle" (5 to 2) and "war" (26 to 13 mentions) and "challenge" (24 to 7 in Obama?s article).

Romney put the emphasis on battling the Islamists by using economic measures: "The popularity of Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank should be no surprise given that the group has provided Palestinians with the basic services that neither the international community nor the Palestinian government could deliver", Romney writes, and calls to "dramatically and fundamentally transform our civilian capabilities to promote peace, security, and freedom around the world".

Romney, apparently, is a great believer in the power of economy to change political policies in the Middle East. A critical part of his policy in the region, he says, will include "economic opportunities for the Middle East that could be powerful forces, not only economically, but also in breaking down barriers to cooperation on even the most intractable problems." Some might say that this is the part in which he is the one becoming naïve. But both he and Obama maintain that America has a big role to play in the region, a leader's role. "Israelis, Palestinians, Arab leaders, and the rest of the world have looked to America to lead the effort to build the road to a lasting peace", Obama writes.

Obama, a proponent of talks with Syria (and Iran) believes that "Diplomacy combined with pressure could also reorient Syria away from its radical agenda to a more moderate stance, which could, in turn, help stabilize Iraq, isolate Iran, free Lebanon from Damascus' grip, and better secure Israel." Until now, America wasn't so successful in this mission, even with the pressure it applied and the talks it had with Syria in the past. But Obama seems to think that yet another round of talks might change that. Romney doesn't even mention Syria in his article.

Obama sounds less hopeful on Iran: "We must develop a strong international coalition to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons", he writes, and tasks the international community with this momentous challenge. The means: "Sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy". But the rush to eliminate the more unilateral policies of the Bush administration is not his alone. Romney doesn't trust the world's institutions like "the UN Human Rights Council, an entity that has condemned the democratic government of Israel nine times while remaining virtually silent on the serial human rights abuses of the governments of Cuba, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, and Sudan". Nevertheless, "we need to strengthen old partnerships and alliances and inaugurate new ones to meet twenty-first-century challenges", Romney writes. Obama couldn't agree more: "I intend to rebuild the alliances, partnerships, and institutions necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security".

More On Obama and Romney on Rosner's Domain:

Obama talks to Haaretz: More pressure on Iran urgently needed

From the Israel Factor: Will Romney rise?

From the Israel Factor: Cautiously, the panel looks more favorably on Obama